Failures of Globaliziation

Globalization has led to the creation of large new labor markets, better technologies, and the prevention of a third world war. Justin and Lance discuss how events in recent history have slowed the success of globalization and ask what price we are willing to pay for the benefits of globalization.

tags: tsou, podcast, justin weller, lance jackson, globalization, jobs, money, economy, united states, india, china, russia, africa, politics, war

Episode Transcript

(00:04):
Today on the State of US.The failures of globalization shatter long held beliefs,
what's next for the new world or. When the world's business and political

(00:28):
leaders gathered in twenty eighteen, accordingto New York Times, at the Annual
Economic Forum in Davos, the moodwas jubilant. Growth in every major country
was on an upswing. The globaleconomy, declared the then Managing Director of
the International Monetary Fund is quote ina very sweet spot. Five years later,

(00:50):
in twenty twenty three, the outlookhas decidedly soured. Nearly all economic
forces that powered progress and prosperity overthe last three decades are fading, the
World Bank warned in a recent analysis. The result could be a lost decade
in the making, not just forsome countries or regions, as has occurred

(01:11):
in the past, but for thewhole world. Welcome to the State of
US. I'm your host, Justinte Weeller, joined today by the one
and only, your friendly redneck liberaland the senior resident historian here at True
Chat, and the King of Labels, mister Lance Jackson. Stuff happens.
Stuff happens. That's everybody needs toget a shirt. Stuff happens. Stuff

(01:32):
happens best best laid plans, youknow, just you can count on something
for so long and you know it'sgoing to mess up. Study the economic
history of the world. We gothrough good times and bad times. We've
had such a long run of goodtimes. There aren't a whole lot of
us around who remember the bad times. Is that fair? You're giving me

(01:56):
this weird look, justin that you'renot listening to me, You're reading or
something. But isn't that the case? I mean, is this really any
different than fifty years ago, onehundred years ago, a thousand years ago.
Well, I don't know about that, so it's different for me.
So now I'm scared of it.Well, we've grown up, we being

(02:17):
many of us alive today right inthe era of globalization, where an interconnected
world is common, but for mostof human history that's not the way the
world operated. I think the discrepancy, and this is why people don't know
what's going to happen, is inthe past. Before globalization, we also
didn't have nearly this many people oran economy that's advanced, and most people

(02:38):
were working to find food every day, not working for organizations that don't have
anything to do. With the productionof their sus So we're going to go
back to the basics. Well,and that these people that don't do anything,
and we're all gonna have to lookfor food again. I don't know
that we can do that and maintainthe population that we have. Well,
is that that would be a goodthing? We know that overpopulation if you're

(03:01):
not one of the people that's gettingmixed in the equation, I suppose it's
a good thing. Who gets todecide who gets mixed, who deserves to
get next? What's fair? Doesit matter to be better there's fewer of
us? Or what if we geta global war going? Great? Right,
because then it cuts down on thehuman population and the earth can be

(03:23):
better. The article subheading was warand Pandemic highlight shortcomings of the free market
consensus. The economic conventions that policymakershad relied on since the Berlin Wall fell
more than thirty years ago, whichis the unfailing super majority of open markets,
liberalized trade, and maximum efficiency lookto be running off the rails.

(03:46):
Obviously, COVID tested this and thenfurther tested by the notion of Russia's invasion
of Ukraine, and it's got alot of people thinking about what is the
economic outlook? Well, e yCan included in its twenty twenty three Geostrategic
Outlook the trends behind the shift awayfrom ever increasing globalization quote were accelerated by

(04:09):
COVID nineteen and they have been superchargedby the war in Ukraine. So,
in other words, right, wehave a pandemic which causes us to question,
or not question, but see howvulnerable a global interconnected system is.
Right, all these things that usedto be most of what America consumed was

(04:30):
produced in America, right, Anda lot of what most countries consumed was
produced in their countries prior to globalization, pretty much all of it. Now
that's changed, and so much ofwhat we rely on for day to day
life is not made here, isnot produced here. It has to be
brought in. So when things shutdown the process of transportation or greatly derail

(04:53):
it all of a sudden, allthese things that we're used to having,
we don't have or can't have accesstoo quickly. And then you have war
that happens as well, and youhave all these interests from American business that
were intertwined in Russia saying well,gee, you know I don't know that
we want to be involved in supportinga country that's going to invade another democracy.

(05:14):
You could even throw China into thatmix, right and say that with
some of the recent backlash in Americatowards Chinese owned social media companies and even
telecommunication companies, the questions about,you know, security, do we feel
comfortable allowing certain American companies to operatein China if they're sensitive to our interests

(05:36):
as a nation. It did work, I mean, the article points this
out. It worked for a while, right, I mean, the favored
economic roadmap helped produce fabulous wealth,lift hundreds of millions of people out of
poverty, and spur wondrous technological advances. But there were stunning failures as well.
Globalization has hastened climate change and deepenedinequalities in the United States and other

(06:00):
advanced economies. Many industrial jobs wereexported to lower wage countries, removing a
springboard to the middle class. Companiesembarked on a worldwide scavenger hunt for low
wage workers, regardless of worker protections, environmental impact, or democratic rights.
They found many of them in placeslike Mexico, Vietnam, and China.
Television t shirts and tacos were cheaperthan ever, but many essentials like healthcare,

(06:26):
housing, and higher education were increasinglyout of reach. And you're gonna
blame all that on globalization. WellI'm not. I'm just reading from the
article. So what's the answer.I mean, right, we're going to
go to closing our borders and makingeverything ourselves and just taking care of ourselves.
Oh wait a minute, we didthat one hundred years ago and it

(06:50):
led to World War Two when democracywas threatened by the outside. I mean,
yes, the any system, rightis going to have good and bads.
It's going to have starts and stops, and it's gonna have things that
you're gonna have to work on.Okay, COVID came out of nowhere or

(07:11):
wuhan wherever you want to however youwant to look at it. But it
caused some it caused major difficulties.Okay, does that mean you throw the
baby out with the bathwater? Doyou get rid of something that has worked
for a long time to help alot of people just because an outside source

(07:38):
came in for three years now andupset the apple cart? Or do you
get back if the horse throws you, do you get back up? On
it and keep riding it for whatit's worth. I mean, what about
those people in Vietnam and Mexico thatgot jobs. Did their life get better?
Did their life get Yeah? That'syou know. I mean, I'm

(08:00):
not disagreeing with you because I thinkon the surface level, it's easy for
us all to say, yes,right, I mean, they have more
money, they have jobs. Maybethey didn't have a job before. Maybe
they were working in a field andnow they're working in a factory. Their
life got better, right because orthey're ravaging trash cans to find food and
now they make enough money that atleast they can put food on their table.
I'm not saying they're living in amiddle class life, right. But

(08:24):
let's go back to the Great Depressionhere in the United States. There were
people starving to death who would havetaken those kind of jobs. And I'm
not belittling that. I'm just sayingthe article is casting all of these negative
things going on, and maybe forthose people it was a better life than

(08:46):
they had before. Is it lifeequal to what maybe we all think people
should have. No, but wasit better? Was it better than the
life they were living before? That'spart of the discussion, and I think
the answer is it depends because partof what the article talks about is how
poor countries have paid the price.Poor nations were pressured by wealthy nations to

(09:11):
lift all restrictions on capital moving inand out of their country. The argument
was that money, like goods,should flow freely among nations. Allowing governments,
businesses, and individuals to borrow fromforeign lenders would finance industrial development and
key infrastructure quote. Financial globalization wassupposed to usher in an era of robust
growth and fiscal stability in the developingworld, according to an economist at the

(09:35):
University of Massachusetts, but it endedup doing the opposite. Some loans,
whether from private lenders or institutions likethe World Bank, didn't produce enough returns
to pay off debt. Others werepoured into speculative schemes, half baked proposals,
vanity projects, or corrupt officials.Bank accounts and debtors remained at the
mercy of rising interest rates that swelledthe size of the debt payments in a

(09:56):
heartbeat over the years. This ledto reckless lending, asset bubbles, currency
fluctuations, and official mismanagement led toboom and bus cycles in Asia, Russia,
Latin America and elsewhere. In SriLanka, extravagant projects undertaken by the
government, from ports to cricket stadiumshelped drive the country into bankruptcy last year,
as citizens scavenged for food and thecentral Bank, in a border arrangement,

(10:20):
paid for Iranian oil with tea leaves. Is it the system's fault if
people abuse the system or if governmentsabuse the system? Is the system bad?
If somebody's borrowing money to build sportsstadiums when they need to be building
roads in their country, in infrastructure, in better ports. Is that the

(10:43):
fault of the system or is thatthe fault of bad governments that are asking
for money and not using it wiselywithin their own country. It's a question
we're going to seek to answer.Keep it here on the State of US,
and we'll be right back. Inadvanced industrial giants like the United States,

(11:13):
Britain, in several European countries,political leaders turned out to be unable
or unwilling to more broadly reapportion rewardsand burdens, Nor were they, according
to The New York Times, ableto prevent damaging environmental fallout transporting goods around
the globe, increased greenhouse gas emissionsproducing for a world of consumers, strained

(11:35):
natural resources, encouraging over fishing inSoutheast Asia and illegal deforestation in Brazil,
and cheap production facilities polluted countries whereadequate environmental standards didn't exist. It turned
out that markets on their own weren'table to automatically distribute gains fairly, or
spur developing countries to grow, orestablish democratic institutions. That is sort of

(12:01):
where we left off the last segmentof this question of is it the system's
fault or the people making the decisions? And the answer I think is yes,
yes both we believe or we werebeing told right, or the theory
went whatever you want to call it, that if we allow these things to
you know, if we allow thisfree flow of information and goods across borders

(12:24):
and money and people, that itwill be self regulating because businesses will invest
in different areas, and then oncethey invest there, the people will want
higher standards, which will spur changeswithin the government, which will better regulate
the businesses, which so on andso forth. The other thing that I
think we have to keep in mindis that America and I know some people

(12:46):
may take problem with this, butI want you to hear it out.
Is exceptional in what we've pulled off, And the other way to say that
is we're lucky in what we've pulledoff. There were a lot of opportunities
along the way for a republic basedgovernment like ours to topple and fail.

(13:07):
Most democracies that have lasted a longtime in the world are parliamentary systems,
not systems like ours, And therewere opportunities along the way where it could
easily flipped and gone the other way. So you could use that and say
we're exceptional. You could say we'relucky. We got the balance right,

(13:30):
whether it was our intuition, smarts, or just dumb luck, whatever you
want to call it, our balancealong the way and our development played out
that way. The question is canthat be duplicated in other places where the
situations are different. And it's nota rhetorical question, because I think part
of what the article is highlighting isit works in some places and in other

(13:52):
places it hasn't. Like we've talkedabout, how you know, basically large
swaths of Africa have been taken overessentially by Russia and China, and they're
you know, damn near close toenslaving people to get what they want because
they can take advantage of these countriesbecause they're rich and powerful and they can
pay off the people that are theleaders, and the people in the countries

(14:15):
don't know enough because there's no wayto know more of what's going on,
so they just they assume this isall there is, you know. So
the question, right goes back tothat trade and shared economic interest prevent war.
Well, they've prevented war for quitea while, but obviously they weren't
enough to stop Russia from doing somethingdrastic and terrible, you know, putin

(14:39):
well, or terrorism attacking the worldin the world, then going to fight
terrorism by the United States fighting terrorismby attacking individual countries, so that,
I don't know, that just doesn'tseem I understand the argument. It just
doesn't seem fair or right to mewith the system because it has opened up

(15:05):
ideas. But what took place inmany of these other countries, Well,
why didn't the United States step inand stop Russia and China from taking over?
Why didn't we do what we shouldhave done as a world leader instead
of just taking the cream off thetop and doing it with it ourselves.

(15:33):
And again, do people have theright to determine their own outcome they if
they have a fledgling democracy, isit the role of the United States to
support it or do they have tofind their own way to make it work?

(15:58):
And if they don't, is thatthe fault of globalization? If a
country starts up a democracy and can'tkeep it going, is that globalization's fault
or is it the people's fault fornot continuing that. I mean, we've
got the same thing facing us herein the United States. I don't think

(16:22):
it's because of globalization, but we'regoing through a rough time in our democracy
right now. So is that becauseof globalization or is it because of people
not understanding the way our system ofgovernment works? Is it with people being
in charge of the system who areabusing the system? I mean, what

(16:48):
is the answer there? Because we'rethe United States is not immune to this
either. We are at a strugglingtime for our democracy. I mean we're
talking about, oh, well,there will there be a third political party
that will come. Will there bea death now for the Republican Party as
we've known it since the eighteen fifties, is it going to fall away?

(17:11):
We're having those discussions. What's goingto happen in the twenty twenty four election.
You know, are we going tosee a third party candidate rise from
the ashes? And you know what'sgoing to happen to the Democrats and the
Republicans and all that. How isthat any different than what's going on elsewhere?
And is that the cause of globalization? The challenge once you've globalized,

(17:33):
right, or once you're you know, largely globalized, is that you can't
ever really separate anything that takes place. When can you go back? Can
you go away from it? Well? I don't know that that's necessarily what
the article. You want everybody tobecome motivist again, because that's what caused
World War two, that's what's causedevery great war, and that's in the
history of mankind. And that goesback to your Romans, and that's the

(17:56):
question about can we do better theRomans and the Greeks? Right when he
went with globalization. I know you'rea big Romans guy, you know,
reading about the Roman Empire and thefall of the Roman Empire and you're in
England, right, So we hadglobalization and then when they retracted from that,
that's when we had all the greatupheavals in the world. So is

(18:18):
globalization the reason we're having the upheavilsor is it globalization that will stop us
from careening out of control like wehave in the past when we've pulled back
from globalization. I guess we giveprobably. It's sort of like when we
talk about the president and the economy, right, we give too much credit
and too much blame to globalization.We give a lot of credit to it

(18:41):
for all these wonderful things that havehappened, which, in fairness it is
owed a lot of those things.We also blame it for a lot of
awful things that have happened, andin fairness, a lot of those awful
things happened because of the way weembraced globalization, you know, which goes
back to that is it a systemor a person where people came up with
the notion? But did anybody layout a set of rules at the beginning

(19:03):
and say this is exactly how it'sgoing to go, no matter AI is
going to take over and run it. Well, then we'll have to sorry,
it shouldn't have said that. Butyou know, there are also the
consequences of it, Like, well, okay, we can we can redistribute
this stuff, but we have toget things from point A to point B.
Right, Well, globalization wasn't designedfrom the onset to account for what's

(19:25):
going to be the environmental impact ofdoing this. You know, the further
we have to transport things, themore energy we have to use to get
them from A to B. Evenif it's cost effective, that doesn't mean
that it's environmentally smart. When wedidn't have globalization, the United States cut
down millions and millions of trees andburned them for power and built the railroads.

(19:48):
Yep, will that ruined the environment? Yes? So? But the
way isolationism didn't work because I meanit increased the population, right and all
of a sudden more food stuffs wereneeded, which then caused us to go
out and start to conquer the worldbecause we needed more raw materials than what

(20:10):
we had the ability to have withinour own country. If you're not in
charge, somebody else will be andpeople are going to watch out for themselves.
And can you change that? Isthat an internal drive that's within all
of us? Are we just inherentlyselfish? Yeah? Take care of ourselves?

(20:36):
The Chinese, right, And ifI'm trying to take care of myself,
that's fine. But justin if you'retrying to take care of yourself at
the loss of me, then that'swrong. You're not allowed to do that
because that hurts me. But Iwant to do the same thing and it

(20:56):
hurts you. I don't care becauseI'm better off. Is it that just
the way the world works. It'sthe way it's working right now. I
guess if you say it's working,don't you think it's always been that way?
Though? Well, the thing that'shard is comparing us to where civilization
was go even two hundred years ago, when the spanishkin quistadors came over and

(21:18):
we're looking for gold, and theydidn't care what they did to the native
people and they wiped out looking outfor themself now wiped out ninety percent of
them through diseases and war. Theywere concerned about other people, No,
I mean those well or not enough, right, and they did it within
the framework of God, gold andglory. So is my point is,

(21:40):
no matter what the system, inherentlyhuman beings do these kinds of things,
there will be people that do thesethings. Yes, and often people that
don't think they can do them endup being the ones that do them.
And if things are better now forpeople than they were before, if life
expectancy is longer, people are doinga better you know, living more life

(22:03):
than they've ever had before, thenisn't global hasn't globalization been a success?
Yes, bad things happen, butbad things happen in every realm of history,
right, Yes, So if we'vegained all this technology, we're getting
new ways of doing things, peopleare living longer and healthier. All of

(22:23):
these things are good things that havehappened. Well, the bad things are
going to happen anyway, because theyalways have, So shouldn't we embrace what
continues to make some parts of lifebetter. It's going to depend on who
you ask, because I mean,for the United States, the answer would
be yeah, you know, thisoverall has worked out pretty well for us.

(22:48):
You know, I mean, we'restill in charge, we still make
the decisions. We have by farand away the largest and most powerful military.
So yeah, people get hurt alongthe way, But if we're looking
out or are well, it's alsostop global wars. I mean, well,
there have been skirmishes or fights withinokay, but again, we all,

(23:10):
I mean, God bless them,the old you know, in the
United States, the Greatest generation.But around the world, the French and
the Germans and all the other peoplewho fought Chinese Japanese in World War Two,
most of them have died off.So are we forgetting what it was
like? Are we not going tostudy history and say, okay, it's
only good. No, it's beengood for everybody, because none of us

(23:32):
on the earth right now, Imean a very few, less than one
percent, know what it's like togo through a global war. Well,
that's the that's the next question wewant to look at. Is the only
answer to go back to nativism orisolationism and avoid globalization altogether? Or is
there another path? Keep it hereon the state of US and we'll be
right back. China manufactures eighty percentof the world's solar panels. Taiwan produces

(24:07):
ninety two percent of tiny advanced semiconductors. Much of the world's trade and transactions
are figured in US dollars. TheNew York Times article that we're referencing to
day goes on to explain the newreality is reflected in American policy. The
United States, the Central architect ofthe liberalized world order and the World Trade
Organization, has turned away from morecomprehensive free trade agreements and has repeatedly refused

(24:32):
to abide by WTO decisions. Securityconcerns have led the Biden administration to block
Chinese investment in American businesses and limitChinese access to private data on citizens and
to new technologies, and it hasembraced Chinese style industrial policy, offering gargantuan
subsidies for electric vehicles, batteries,wind farms, solar panels, and more

(24:52):
to secure supply chains and speed thetransition to renewable energy. One part,
they point out is the proliferation ofeconomic exchanges between nations also failed to usher
in a promised democratic renaissance. Communistsled China turned out to be the global
economic system's biggest beneficiary and perhaps mastergamesmen without embracing democratic values quote capitalist tools

(25:18):
in socialist hands. The Chinese leaderin nineteen ninety two famously said, when
his country was developing into the world'sfactory floor, the question that we left
off with at the end of thelast segment is the only other option to
go back to isolationism. And thenwouldn't that be worse, because don't we
know how that worked out the lasttime that America tried to practice that and

(25:40):
say we don't want any part ofwhat's going on over there in the other
part of the world. Well,no, there's probably other options. I'm
not sure what they are, butright hybrid models of globalization, changes to
globalization. We don't have a lotto go on in terms of well,
we have nothing to go on otherthan what we have right now in terms

(26:00):
of a world with you know,eight billion some people, a growing popular
a continuing growing population, a worseningclimate crisis, and questions about you know,
is it really better for everybody?It's better maybe for the majority of
people, and are we okay withthat? And maybe we are, you
know, maybe that's maybe that's themeasure that matters. More people are better

(26:25):
off today than they were before,So this is the best or is there
something better? I don't think theanswer is returned to what once was,
you know, I think we knowenough about what once was to say two
things. One, it's not it'snot practically sustainable based on the current size
and scope of the world to dothat. It's just not It would send

(26:48):
backwards some countries into terrible poverty andstarvation who didn't have the means to figure
out their new place in the world. Because there's a lot of countries out
there, folks, right, littletiny countries who really they do one thing
right and they rely on big nationsto purchase stuff from them. And is
that sad? Yes? Should doI believe that those three and you're throwing

(27:15):
the European Union as the fourth,should come to the aid of these poorer
countries. Yes, okay, buthow do you do that if you don't
have globalization, Well, you havethe colonial system and that's what went on
before and that didn't work well.Right, So if everybody is intertwined and

(27:37):
their economies are intertwined, then atsome point you would think, and again
I know I'm a supposition here,but you would think that everyone would the
powers that be would see it's inour own best interest to help these people.
And maybe that's what we're entering into. We're entering into this phase.

(27:57):
We can't just rape the world forour own country's good. That we have
to learn to still take what weneed or find a better way other than
taking it. But we have tolearn to work together or the outcome is

(28:17):
there's going to be nothing for anybodyto rule over because we're going to ruin
it. So it's a good thingto have globalization because now we can work
together to try to fix some ofthese problems. And maybe that's just the
next phase or the next segment ofglobalization that we're in the midst of working

(28:40):
through that thirty years from now,you and whoever your co host will be
will be discussing because I won't behere, but that you'll look back at
this time and say, this iswhen we started to figure out how does
China, Russia, you know,get along, how does the United States

(29:00):
figure in on that, how dowe all work together to lower And thirty
years from now, maybe we didthat. Maybe we've accomplished lowering the global
climate issue to where all of asudden, the island nations out there in

(29:22):
the South Pacific aren't being overrun bysalt water and the huge forest fires are
gone, and we've fixed all thatbecause of globalization. I think the question
also, though, is are thereare there enough people with enough of the
power that can continue to believe inthe system. Because it goes back to

(29:48):
the notion of it worked until rightfor example, somebody like Putin came along
and said, I don't care.I don't care about your comment sequences.
You know, I don't care ifmy people starve, because the notion was
that, well, surely you knowsomebody's not gonna let you're not going to
murder your citizens by the you know, thousands or tens of thousands, hundreds

(30:11):
of thousands. You're not gonna dothat because you know they'd rise up and
they'd revolt against you, which andmaybe that will still happen, and and
maybe it will. But the otherthing that, you know, again,
just things that we couldn't account forand nobody should have. I'm not blaming
anybody, it's you couldn't have.You couldn't have known certain things that we
know today because we didn't have certaintechnologies, and we wouldn't have them without

(30:33):
globalization. They're just things that wehave to figure out now moving forward,
Like what do you do when we'rereliant on an information system that puts TV
in somebody in everybody's home, Becausethat's a huge part of the way that
Russia controls its people and prevents themfrom rising up to change their leadership.
When if they really understood what's happening. I don't think the Russian people would

(30:59):
still be gun home about Putin.But aren't there segments of Americans who are
making that same claim, sure thatyou can't trust the media and so we
don't really know what's going on andthat's causing us to overthrow our government.
So to counter, you're proud toall right, so it's county because that's
going on in Russia by Putin.Won't that lead the people to try to

(31:22):
overthrow the government. It's again,it's one of those that's really hard since
we're not since we've we're not experiencing. We don't live in a system right
where you can only get one newspaperor that every newspaper you get was already
censored by the government, or atleast we don't think we do. The
difference is a majority of people inRussia support, you know, the actions
of their government and not like,oh, fifty one percent, like you

(31:45):
know, sixty seventy percent on anygiven day by any independent polling measure,
you come up away with people thatmaybe they don't believe it in their heart
of hearts, but they won't sayotherwise, you know, publicly, and
if you're not even willing to sayotherwise in an anonymous poll. Are you
likely to rise up and overthrow yourgovernment? Probably not? And also is

(32:06):
it as likely that you can overthrowyour government? I mean, I think
that's the other thing of these peoplein the United States. Part of the
reason that is it kind of scarythat there's people that think that way,
that you can't trust anything. Yeah, it is, But also should we
really be that scared? I mean, we live in a nation with the
most powerful government, the largest theworld has ever seen, and more technologically

(32:28):
advanced than any of the people sittingin this room have even the slightest idea.
I mean, we kind of havea vague notion of what we can
do. But do we really comprehendour power? Do we really think that
our government would allow our people tooverthrow it today? Could we if we
wanted to? It's nice to thinkthat we could, there was a time

(32:49):
where we could. But the otherside of this is, once you get
to a certain size, can itbe done? I mean, it's nice
to think that the people in Russiamight rise up and overthrow Putin, but
unless somebody slips up, right,unless a big mistake is made, by
the people who control the system,can you actually topple it, because it's

(33:14):
really quickly. I want to askyou a question. Then, with everything
you've just said, then how doyou go about changing globalization? Because you
just said, all these people arenow ruling things that have so much power,
we don't have power to change it. So if these people continue to
want globalization, it's going to stay. By your own argument, right,

(33:39):
I'm not trying to say you paintedyourself in a corner, but you painted
yourself in a corner because you justsaid, if we don't have the power
of the Russians, if the Chinese, the Indians, all of those people
have all these commoners who could riseup against the government, but the governments
are so strong that they can putall that down. Then is there any

(34:00):
way to change the globalization if thepowers that be don't want it changed.
See, and I'm still holding outof hope that if the masses were to
get behind an idea, the governmentscan't stop us. I don't, I
guess disagree with the notion that ifwe could get behind an idea. I
think the issue is that the people, the people that have access to control

(34:23):
the ideas that we have access to, and I think we're seeing this in
our country right now. Understand thatat the end of the day, it's
what we talked about years ago onthis show when we talked about the issue
with the media. Right. Ifyou control the information that people have access
to, if you control what theyknow, then you have the power because

(34:49):
you don't need you don't need themoney, you don't need the military,
you don't need. If you havethe people, if you have them controlled,
the rest of it really doesn't matterbecause you can control it all.
If you can control what you feedpeople, then you're going to control how
they develop and what they think,which is why I fight for free media,
right, you know, so thatyou can have the sharing of ideas,

(35:13):
because that's the foundation, which iswhy we have the show of political
and economic freedom. The challenge isthat when there are other world powers that
possess weapons capable of wiping out millionsor tens of millions or billions of people,
and they don't abide by those systems, there's a natural I mean we're

(35:36):
experiencing right now right between the UnitedStates and China. There is a natural
collision that's going to occur between thosesocieties because they don't operate by the same
but it behooves both of them tofigure it out because if there is a
conflict, neither one will be aroundto rule anything, which logically I agree
with. I don't see, andthat's what I think so hard about the

(36:01):
thing that's going on right now withRussia and Ukraine, right is it seems
like the only thing that Ukraine hasbeen for Putin is bad. But I
don't know that he cares that it'sbeen bad. And you could say,
well, maybe he thought it wasgoing to be different, he thought it
would be a good thing, butlike, is it really I mean,
great, you take Ukraine, Likewhat what did that really get you?

(36:24):
I guess other than I mean prestige. But that's not that's not in the
interest of your people. It's notin the interest of your economy. It's
not I mean, what what isthat doing for the global world order?
For Russia to have Ukraine? Andthat's that's therein lies right the rub of
I don't know. I think withsmart leaders or even semi smart leaders who

(36:45):
see the logic that you presented,yes, but what happens when you get
people who can control the message thenarrative who aren't interested in doing what's smart.
They're just going to do what theywant and they don't really care what
the consequences are. Well, youknow my answer to that, we just
take them out right. Well,but we've not been willing to do that
a lot lately. I understand that, but that's again, but historically it's

(37:10):
just I'm a history person, andthat's what we've done in the United States
since we've been in control. Okay, the reason, right, I mean,
we were trying to well, yeah, we have a mission, okay,
and our mission is to educate peopleby providing honest, open and respectful
conversations. And I thought we didthat. I don't know, you don't

(37:31):
sounds so sure, but no,I thought it was a good show today
and as you listen, hopefully youenjoyed it made you think a little bit.
Tell your family and friends, Tellthem if they want to listen to
the show themselves. They can findit as a podcast on Spotify, Overcast,
Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, and everywherepodcasts are found. The State of
US releases new episodes Tuesdays and Thursday'sFirst Thing in the Morning. As a

(37:53):
podcast. Those same episodes are heardon the weekends on AM and FM radio
stations across the United States and partsof Canada. For the State of US,
I'm Justin t Weller. I'm LynceJackson. Special thanks to our associate
recording producer le Vi la Forge andsenior editing producer Bramley Which thank you all,
of course, to our audience fortuning in. We'll see you next

(38:14):
time. Be the change. Besure to check out our website, the
State Offus dot org for books,articles, and all the ways to tune
in the State of US dot org.